document of the world bankdocuments1.worldbank.org/curated/en/263171468191040056/...antropología e...

Document of The World Bank

Report No: ICR00003658

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IBRD-74170)

ON A

LOAN

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 62.3 MILLION

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA

FOR A

LAND ADMINISTRATION II PROJECT

IN SUPPORT OF THE SECOND PHASE OF THE LAND ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM (APL)

February 19, 2016

Social, Urban, Rural, and Resilience Global Practice Central America Country Management Unit Latin America and the Caribbean Region

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective February 19, 2016)

Currency Unit = Guatemalan Quetzal (GTQ) 1.00 GTQ = US$ 0.13 US$ 1.00 = 7.65 GTQ

FISCAL YEAR

January 1 – December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

APL Adaptable Program Loan CAS Country Assistance Strategy CEIDEPAZ Center for Research and Projects for Development and Peace

(Centro de Investigacion y Proyectos para el Desarrollo y la Paz) COCODES Community Development Council (Consejos Comunitarios de

Desarrollo) CONADUR National Council for Urban and Rural Development (Consejo

Nacional de Desarrollo Urbano y Rural) CONAP National Council for Protected Areas (Consejo Nacional de Áreas

Protegidas) CONTIERRA Special Commission of Land Conflict Resolution (Dependencia

Presidencial de Asistencia Legal y Resolución de Conflictos sobre la Tierra)

CPS Country Partnership Strategy DICABI National Directive of Cadaster and Real Estate Appraisal

(Dirección Nacional de Catastro y Avaluó de Bienes Inmuebles) EA Environmental Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan FAO-TCI United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization Cooperation

Program – Investment Center FM Financial Management FMR Financial Monitoring Report FONTIERRAS Land Fund (Fondo de Tierras) GDP Gross Domestic Product GoG Government of Guatemala IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICB International Competitive Bidding IDAEH Guatemalan Institute of Anthropology and History (Instituto de

Antropología e Historia de Guatemala) IEG Independent Evaluation Group IGN National Geographic Institute (Instituto Geográfico Nacional) INAB National Forests Institute (Instituto Nacional de Bosques) INE National Institute of Statistics (Instituto Nacional de Estadística)

INFOM National Institute of Municipal Development (Instituto Nacional de Fomento Municipal)

IPDP Indigenous Peoples Development Plan IRR Internal Rate of Return ISA International Standards on Auditing ISRR Implementation Status and Results Report IUSI Real Estate Property Tax (Impuesto Único sobre Inmuebles) LAP I Land Administration Project, Phase I M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MAGA Ministry of Agriculture (Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y

Alimentación) MINFIN Ministry of Finance (Ministerio de Finanzas) MTR Medium Term Review NGO Non-Governmental Organization NPV Net Present Value NRA National Reserve Area OAS Social Support Offices (Oficinas de Apoyo Social) OCRET Office of Territorial Reserves (Oficina de Control de Áreas de

Reserva Territorial del Estado) OM Operational Manual OP Operation Policy PA Protected Area PCU Project Coordination Unit PDO Project Development Objective PF Process Framework PINFOR Forestry Incentives Program (Programa de Incentivos Forestales) PINPEP Forestry Incentives Program for Small Landowners of Forestry- or

Agroforestry-suitable Lands (Programa de Incentivos Forestales para Poseedores de Pequeñas Extensiones de Tierras de Vocación Forestal o Agroforestal)

PROTIERRA Inter-institutional Commission for the Strengthening and Development of Land Property Rights (Comisión Institucional para el Desarrollo y Fortalecimiento de la Tierra)

RGP General Property Registry (Registro General de la Propiedad) RIC Registry of Cadastral Information (Registro de Información

Catastral) SAC Client Attention System (Sistema de Atención al Cliente) SAA Secretariat of Agrarian Affairs (Secretaria de Asuntos Agrarios) SEGEPLAN Secretariat of Planning and Programming (Secretaria de

Planificación y Programación de la Presidencia) SIAF Integrated Financial and Administrative System (Sistema

Integrado de Información Financiera) SICOIN National Integrated Accounting System (Sistema de Contabilidad

Integrado Nacional) SIRCAT RIC’s Public Registry

SISERIC RIC’s Monitoring and Evaluation System (Sistema de Seguimiento y Evaluación del RIC)

SITMuni System of Municipal Territorial Information (Sistema de Información Territorial Municipal)

SNIC National System of Cadastral Information (Sistema Nacional de Información Catastral)

TORs Terms of Reference UNDP United Nations Development Program UTJ Technical and Legal Unit (Unidad Técnica y Jurídica) WB World Bank

Senior Global Practice Director: Ede Jorge Ijjasz-Vasquez Practice Manager: Jorge Munoz

Project Team Leader: Enrique Pantoja ICR Team Leader: Enrique Pantoja

GUATEMALA Land Administration II Project

CONTENTS

Data Sheet A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ............................................... 12. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .............................................. 73. Assessment of Outcomes .......................................................................................... 154. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ......................................................... 255. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ..................................................... 256. Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 287. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners .......... 29Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .......................................................................... 31Annex 2. Outputs by Component ................................................................................. 32Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ................................................................. 49Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ............ 59Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ........................................................................... 62Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ................................................... 66Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ..................... 67Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ....................... 71Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...................................................................... 72

MAP IBRD 42165

A. Basic Information

Country: Guatemala Project Name: LAND ADMINISTRATION II APL

Project ID: P087106 L/C/TF Number(s): IBRD-74170 ICR Date: 02/19/2016 ICR Type: Core ICR

Lending Instrument: APL Borrower: REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA

Original Total Commitment:

USD 62.30M Disbursed Amount: USD 49.77M

Revised Amount: USD 51.30M Environmental Category: B Implementing Agency: Registry of Cadastral Information (RIC) Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: B. Key Dates

Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual Date(s) Concept Review: 02/10/2005 Effectiveness: 05/22/2008 05/22/2008

Appraisal: 11/02/2006 Restructuring(s):

06/28/2010 11/30/2011 07/25/2012 08/29/2013

Approval: 12/14/2006 Mid-term Review: 02/06/2012 08/03/2012 Closing: 12/01/2013 09/01/2015 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Moderately Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: High Bank Performance: Moderately Unsatisfactory Borrower Performance: Moderately Satisfactory

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings

Quality at Entry: Moderately Unsatisfactory Government: Moderately Satisfactory

Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing Agency/Agencies: Moderately Satisfactory

Overall Bank Performance:

Moderately Unsatisfactory

Overall Borrower Performance: Moderately Satisfactory

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators

Implementation Performance Indicators

QAG Assessments (if any) Rating

Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

Yes Quality at Entry (QEA):

None

Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

Yes Quality of Supervision (QSA):

None

DO rating before Closing/Inactive status:

Moderately Satisfactory

D. Sector and Theme Codes

Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Central government administration 66 66 Sub-national government administration 34 34

Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Indigenous peoples 13 15 Land administration and management 25 40 Municipal governance and institution building 13 20 Personal and property rights 24 25 Rural markets 25 0 E. Bank Staff

Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Jorge Familiar Calderon Pamela Cox Country Director: J. Humberto Lopez Jane Armitage Practice Manager/Manager:

Jorge A. Munoz Mark E. Cackler

Project Team Leader: Enrique Pantoja Frederic de Dinechin ICR Team Leader: Enrique Pantoja

ICR Primary Authors: Fabrice Edouard, Maria Manuela Faria, and Fernando Galeana

F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The objective of the Project is to foster the process of achieving land tenure security in the Project area through the provision of efficient and accessible cadastral and land administration services.1 Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) There were no revisions to the PDO. (a) PDO Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : 35% of parcels in the Project area are integrated into RIC's Public Registry. Value quantitative or Qualitative)

0% 50% 35% 16.54%

Date achieved 07/01/2010 09/01/2015 09/01/2015

Comments (incl. % achievement)

Partially achieved (47.25%). A total of 274,536 parcels were surveyed in the Project area, of which 45,400 were registered in RIC’s Public Registry. The indicator was revised in the first Restructuring; the target was further revised in the fourth.

Indicator 2 : The technological platform that includes RIC's public registry (SIRCAT) is assessed to be satisfactory regarding its functionality, and physical and data security.

Value quantitative or Qualitative)

0 Assessed as satisfactory Assessed as satisfactory

Date achieved 07/01/2010 09/01/2015 09/01/2015 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Achieved (100%). A technical audit of SIRCAT resulted in a 72.8 percent rating, based on which SIRCAT is assessed as satisfactory. The unit of measure of this indicator was revised in the fourth Project Restructuring.

Indicator 3 : At least 50% of land conflicts identified during the cadastral establishment process are resolved. Value quantitative or Qualitative)

0 50% 53.98%

1 The PDO definition in the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) Datasheet and Main Text (p. 4) is slightly different: “…to foster the process of achieving land tenure security in seven new departments (Alta Verapaz, Baja Verapaz, Chiquimula, Escuintla, Izabal, Sacatepequez, and Zacapa) and the municipality of Palachum [sic] in the Department of Quiche through the provision of efficient and accessible cadastral and land administration services.” The version of the PDO used in the ICRR is the same as in the Loan Agreement and Annex 3 of the PAD.


Surpassed (107.96%). A total of 1,771 conflicts were identified during the cadastral process (e.g., during surveying activities and public displays of information), of which 956 were resolved.

Indicator 4 : Less than 10% of parcels incorporated in the RIC database have reports of absenteeism or not attendance of the owner/occupant. Value quantitative or Qualitative)

13% 10% 2.94%

Date achieved 07/31/2013 09/01/2015 09/01/2015


Surpassed (340%). Of the 274,536 parcels surveyed, only 8,065 owners/occupants were absent. This indicator was added in the fourth Project Restructuring as a better measure of participation than indicator number 9, below.

Indicator 5 : Target population with use or ownership rights recorded as a result of the Project. [Core Indicator] Value quantitative or Qualitative)

320,915 1,128,712 965,076

Date achieved 07/31/2013 09/01/2015 09/01/2015


Partially achieved (85.5%). 965,076 individuals had their use or ownership rights recorded. This indicator was added in the fourth Project Restructuring. The target value was revised during the final evaluation based on more precise population estimates.

Indicator 5(a) : Number of women beneficiaries with rights recorded.

Value quantitative or Qualitative)

163,667 575,643 492,188


Achieved (51%). A total of 492,188 women had their use or ownership rights recorded. The target of 575,643 women beneficiaries represented 51% of the total target of 1,128,712 beneficiaries.

Indicator 6 : 80% of new transactions in the project area conducted with validated and integrated cadastral and registry information. Value quantitative or Qualitative)

0 80% --

Date achieved 01/12/2007 n/a Comments (incl. % achievement)

Dropped. This indicator was replaced during the first Project Restructuring by Indicator 1 above as a better measurement of the Project’s impact.

Indicator 7 : Satisfactory rating (third level on a four-scale basis) by at least 50% of National System of Cadastral Information. Value quantitative or Qualitative)

0 Satisfactory rating --

Date achieved 01/12/2007 n/a


Dropped. This indicator was eliminated in the fourth Restructuring as it would not be feasible to measure it at the end of the Project in a statistically adequate manner.

Indicator 8 : At least 70% of the targeted population in the project area participates in the cadastral survey (at least 40% participating population is of indigenous descent).Value quantitative or Qualitative)

0 70% --


Dropped. This indicator was replaced with Indicator 4 above, as a better proxy to measure population participation in the cadastral process.

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised

Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Land parcels with use or ownership rights recorded as a result of the Project. [Core Indicator] Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

64,183 300,000 274,536


Partially achieved (91.51%). A total of 274,536 parcels had their use or ownership rights recorded in RIC’s database. This indicator was added in the fourth Project Restructuring.

Indicator 1(b) :

Land parcels with use/ownership rights recorded as a result of the Project - female.

Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

22,464 85,000 96,088


Surpassed (113.04%). A total of 96,088 parcels with use or ownership rights recorded had a woman as sole or joint owner/occupant.

Indicator 2 :

80% of communal lands in the Project [area] identified and certified according to the process established in the Regulations for Communal Lands and Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (IPDP), of which at least 50% are in indigenous people’s communal lands.


0 80% 16%


Partially achieved (20%). Of the 25 communities that requested the communal land certification, 4 received it before the end of the Project. One of these is in indigenous peoples’ lands, i.e. 25% of those certified.

Indicator 3 : 427km of protected areas' (PAs) boundaries and 100km of national reserve areas'(NRAs) boundaries delimited and demarcated in the Project area.


0 13 protected areas demarcated 427km / 100km

463.36km (delimited) & 306.47km (demarcated) in protected areas/110.25km (delimited) & 74.75km (demarcated) in territorial reserves.

Date achieved 01/12/2007 09/01/2015 09/01/2015


Partially achieved (72%/74%). 463.36km of PAs’ boundaries were delimited, 306.47km were demarcated. 74.75km of NRAs’ boundaries were delimited and demarcated. The indicator was revised in the first Restructuring; targets were revised in the fourth.

Indicator 4 : 195 archeological sites and 25 ceremonial sites in the Project area identified, geo-referenced and incorporated into the database of the Department of Cultural Resources' Registry.


0 250 archeological sites 195 / 25 299 / 201

Date achieved 01/12/2007 09/01/2015 09/01/2015


Surpassed (153.33%/804%). 299 archeological sites and 201 ceremonial sites were identified, georeferenced, and incorporated in the Registry of the Department of Cultural Resources. The indicator was revised in the fourth Restructuring.

Indicator 5 : 30% of land conflicts identified previously by SAA within the Project area are resolved. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

34% 30% 26%


Partially achieved (86.67%). Of a total of 250 conflicts previously identified by SAA in the Project area, 65 were resolved. Results were measured by SAA. This indicator was added in the fourth Project Restructuring.

Indicator 6 : At least 60% of individual parcels or communal lands identified as eligible for regularization or special titling are titled and registered in RGP, and benefit women and indigenous peoples.


0 60% 33.58%

Date achieved 01/12/2007 09/01/2015 09/01/2015


Partially achieved (55.97%). Of 5,000 parcels identified as eligible, 1,679 were titled and registered in RGP. All 1,679 parcels benefit indigenous peoples, and 1,072 (63.85%) benefit women. The indicator was revised in the fourth Restructuring.

Indicator 7 : 6 cluster offices established in the Project area during cadastral surveying process, of which at least 5 offer cadastral services permanently.


0 8 6 / 5

9 offices established, of which 7 permanently


Surpassed (150%). Nine cluster offices were established in the Project area, seven of which are expected to continue offering cadastral services permanently. The target of this indicator was revised in the first Project Restructuring.

Indicator 8 : 100 professional surveyors and 250 technical surveyors certified and registered in RIC's Registry of Surveyors. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 50 surveyors 100 / 250 766 / 1088


Surpassed (766% / 435.2%). A total of 766 professional surveyors and 1,088 technical surveyors were certified and registered in RIC’s Registry of Surveyors.

Indicator 9 : 100% of new transactions within the Project area, related to change of rights (dominio) in RGP, are incorporated in the Public Registry of RIC. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 80% 100% 100%


Achieved. All new transactions concerning change of rights within the Project area were incorporated in RIC’s Public Registry. The target of this indicator was revised in the fourth Project Restructuring.

Indicator 10 : At least 20 municipalities use cadastral information for territorial planning and other uses, and send information for cadastral update and maintenance. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 20 22

Date achieved 01/12/2007 09/01/2015 09/01/2015


Surpassed (110%). 22 municipalities use cadastral information for multiple purposes or send information for cadastral update and maintenance. Of these, 9 have installed SITMuni for managing the cadaster, 6 have initiated territorial planning processes.

Indicator 11 : Regulations on the RIC Law, and regulations on the certification of communal lands approved by RIC.


No regulations on the RIC Law, no Specific Regulation on Communal Lands

Regulations on the RIC Law and Specific Regulation on Communal Lands approved by RIC

2 Regulations completed.

Date achieved 01/12/2007 09/01/2015 03/15/2009 Comments Achieved. Both Regulations were issued timely.

(incl. % achievement) Indicator 12 : An integrated Registry-Cadaster information platform operates satisfactorily. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 100% 80%

Date achieved 01/12/2007 09/01/2015 09/01/2015


Partially achieved. Several modules were developed. However, a systems’ audit identified weaknesses in the infrastructure and platform that could compromise the security of the information. This indicator was revised in the fourth Restructuring.

Indicator 13 : Budget, annual operative plans, M&E issued on time as per the Loan Agreement.Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 100% 100%


Achieved. The following documents were verified: approved annual operational and procurement plans; progress reports; M&E reports; baseline, medium term and final evaluations; financial audits, and the Project’s financial documentation.

Indicator 14 : Monitoring and Evaluation and FM systems for the Project developed and operating. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 100% 50%


Partially achieved (50%). The Project satisfactorily operated separate M&E and FM systems. However, the two systems were not linked and as a result there was no combined monitoring of the physical and financial progress.

Indicator 15 : 10% of identified communal lands are regularized and registered in RGP. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 10% --


Dropped. This indicator was considered redundant given that Indicator 2 above provides a more accurate description of outcomes on communal lands.

Indicator 16 : At least 30 municipalities have received technical assistance and training for administration and collection of property taxes (IUSI). Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 30 --


Dropped. This indicator was added in the first Restructuring; in the fourth restructuring it was replaced with Indicator 10 above which is more focused on outcomes.

Indicator 17 : At least 15,000 families in the Project area benefited from regularization processes and registry in RGP, of which x% are poor. Value 0 15,000 --

(quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 07/01/2010 n/a Comments (incl. % achievement)

Dropped. This indicator was added in the first Restructuring; in the fourth restructuring it was replaced with Indicator 6 above, which provides a better breakdown of outcomes for women and indigenous peoples.

Indicator 18 : 100% of registry books in the Second Property Registry indexed and digitized. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 100% --


Dropped. This indicator was added in the first Restructuring; in the fourth restructuring it was eliminated as it was an output rather than outcome indicator.

Indicator 19 : Virtual portal operating for updating and exchange of property registration. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 100% --


Dropped. This indicator was added in the first Restructuring; in the fourth restructuring it was eliminated as it was an output rather than outcome indicator; Indicator 12 above provides a better measure of related outcomes.

Indicator 20 : 80% of surveyed parcels in the project area (including national, private, and communal lands) incorporated into RIC's database (target: 280,000 out of 350,000).


0 80% --


Dropped. This indicator was replaced by Indicator 1 above.

Indicator 21 : 2,800 lineal km of municipal boundaries identified and agreed among the relevant parties. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 2,800km --


Dropped. This indicator was eliminated in the fourth Restructuring as it was an output rather than outcome indicator. It continued to be monitored through Annual Operational Plans, although not as part of the results matrix.

Indicator 22 : 60% of parcels in private lands identified as eligible for the special titling procedure prescribed in the RIC Law are titled and registered in RGP. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 60% --

Date achieved 01/12/2007 n/a Comments Dropped. This indicator was included in Indicator 6 above.

(incl. % achievement) Indicator 23 : A draft Land Regularization Law prepared by RIC, RGP, Land Fund and SAA. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

No Law Land Regularization Law

--


Dropped. This indicator was eliminated since this activity was not directly relevant to the PDO; reaching consensus on a draft law was also beyond the control of the Government, and particularly of RIC.

Indicator 24 : 500 technicians trained in land administration through RIC's Land Use and Cadaster Training Center. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 500


Dropped. This indicator was eliminated as it overlapped with Indicator 8 above.

Indicator 25 : At least 14 CORS (active geodesic network) stations are functioning at the national level, and the passive geodesic network established in the Project area. Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 14 --


Dropped. This indicator was added in the first Restructuring; in the fourth restructuring it was eliminated as it was an output rather than outcome indicator. It continued to be monitored, although not as part of the results matrix.

Indicator 26 : Spatial Data Infrastructure in operation (application and standards). Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 Infrastructure in operation


Dropped. This indicator was eliminated as it was an output rather than outcome indicator; Indicator 10 above provides a better measure of related outcomes.

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

No. Date ISR Archived DO IP Actual

Disbursements (USD millions)

1 01/16/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 09/05/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00

3 10/25/2007 Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 0.00

4 04/11/2008 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.00

5 11/03/2008 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.00

6 05/08/2009 Moderately Unsatisfactory Moderately

Unsatisfactory 1.50


Unsatisfactory 1.50


Unsatisfactory 2.71


Unsatisfactory 3.02

10 01/04/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 5.24 11 07/27/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 10.75 12 12/21/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 13.00 13 04/17/2012 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 15.91 14 11/10/2012 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 21.65 15 06/10/2013 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 27.22 16 12/15/2013 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 30.75 17 07/01/2014 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 33.49 18 01/07/2015 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 43.12

19 07/20/2015 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 46.53

20 08/28/2015 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 49.61

H. Restructuring (if any)

Restructuring Date(s)

Board Approved

PDO Change

ISR Ratings atRestructuring

Amount Disbursed at

Restructuring in USD millions

Reason for Restructuring & Key Changes Made DO IP

06/28/2010 N MU MU 3.02

Increased and unforeseen costs since project preparation, RIC’s weak coordination and implementation capacity, and closer analysis of relevance of project activities, justified the following changes: (i) adjustment in scope of cadastral surveying (from 55 to 41 municipalities), (ii) establishment of inter-institutional and technical committees, (iii) changes to description of project activities, (iv) reallocation of loan proceeds to reflect adjusted project scope, and (v) changes

Restructuring Date(s)

Board Approved

PDO Change

ISR Ratings atRestructuring

Amount Disbursed at

Restructuring in USD millions

Reason for Restructuring & Key Changes Made DO IP

to the submission period of IFRs and progress reports.

11/30/2011 MS MS 13.00

Due to the need to hire field technical services provided by individuals, the restructure allowed for: (i) using “Service Delivery Contractors” as a selection method for individual consultant services, and (ii) using the latest edition of the Procurement and Consultant Guidelines.

07/25/2012 N MS MS 18.14

To strengthen the Borrower’s capacity to understand and manage a potential case of involuntary restriction of access, the restructure triggered the Involuntary Resettlement Operational Policy (OP 4.12).

08/29/2013 MS MS 27.22

Due to delays in Project implementation (including an initial 17-month delay in Loan effectiveness) and a results framework that was too complex, the restructure included: (i) extension of the Loan closing date from December 1, 2013 to September 1, 2015, and (ii) modifications to and clarification of the Project Results Matrix.

I. Disbursement Profile

1

The Land Administration II Project was the Second Phase of the Guatemala Land Administration Program. The Project helped to address land tenure insecurity – one of the most important development issues for Guatemala – by surveying 274,536 parcels, benefiting close to one million people. It also strengthened the country’s legal and institutional framework for land administration by supporting the new Registry of Cadastral Information (RIC), as well as the development of regulations, norms, and procedures related to the cadaster, and of a technological platform to integrate the cadaster and registry. The Project helped to decentralize cadastral services by opening 9 regional offices of RIC and providing technical assistance for multipurpose cadaster to 22 municipalities. RIC, in coordination with the Secretariat of Agrarian Affairs (SAA), facilitated the resolution of high-profile land conflicts, such as those in El Estor, and other conflicts identified during the cadastral survey. A historical precedent was set by certifying and registering the communal lands of 4 communities, while 12 more are in the process of being registered. In spite of this progress, land remains a challenging issue and the land agenda established by the 1996 Peace Accords has not yet been fulfilled. The Project was able to make an impact by coordinating among seven land agencies, municipalities, and civil society organizations to foster a comprehensive, participatory, and inclusive process for improving land tenure. The complexity of Project design, however, led to numerous implementation challenges, which contributed to a total implementation period of seven years. Established as a legal cadaster, with comprehensive parcel-based cadastral and legal analyses, the process provided reliable information to increase the legal security of tenure, even if the mass cadastral methodology proved expensive and cumbersome. Contracts for land surveying with private firms also proved more expensive and difficult to manage than had been anticipated. Due to national budget constraints, RIC had to cancel many of the activities planned for the last year of implementation. In the end, the Project disbursed 79 percent of the original loan amount. The Project provides significant lessons for continuing to improve land administration in Guatemala and in other countries facing similar issues.

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design

1.1 Context at Appraisal 1. Country and Sector Background. When the Project was appraised, a decade had passed since the signing of the 1996 Peace Accords that ended a 36-year civil conflict. Land issues figured prominently in the Socioeconomic and Agrarian Accord that called for the establishment of a legal and institutional framework to ensure land tenure security, and a decentralized and sustainable cadastral-based Property Registry. Land tenure was insecure due to unreliable cadastral (exact geographic description of a parcel) and legal (certainty of legitimate ownership) information, weak coordination among land administration institutions, and incipient conflict resolution mechanisms. The most significant challenges with respect to land were found in rural areas where an unequal distribution of land and overlapping tenure regimes caused conflict. Indigenous communities were particularly affected by land tenure insecurity due to a historical process of land dispossession and the absence of appropriate legal instruments to protect their lands. In addition, the complex socio-ecological arrangements pertaining to indigenous land tenure systems were vulnerable to land privatization and land grabbing.

2

2. As part of the Peace Accords, the Law of RIC was approved in 2005 creating a new autonomous and service-oriented national agency with the objective of establishing, updating, and maintaining the cadaster. The establishment phase referred to developing a cadastral process that involved registry investigation, surveying, technical and legal analyses, and registration of the parcel’s physical location and boundaries in RIC’s Public Registry.2 The Property Registry (RGP) continued to be the agency responsible for the recording of legal rights on land.3 Framed as a legal cadaster, the final outcome of the cadastral process was to notify the population whether the information in the field corresponded to the information in the Property Registry (regular) or not (irregular). RIC’s Public Registry and the Property Registry were to function as a dual-agency system for fostering land tenure security. In addition, RIC was expected to coordinate with other land agencies responsible for special territorial units such as national lands, protected areas, and state reserves.

3. Government Strategy. RIC institutionalized the previous work carried out by the Legal and Technical Unit (UTJ), which was responsible for implementing Phase I of the Land Administration Program in the Department of Petén.4 In addition to national-level efforts, the Government of Guatemala (GoG) pursued a decentralization agenda that influenced the development of the cadastral framework. The 2002 Municipal Code made municipalities responsible for their cadasters through municipal planning offices, which were also responsible for updating geographic information for territorial planning. In 2006, the Government’s program Vamos Guatemala (Let’s Go, Guatemala) included land tenure security improvement as part of its economic pillar. In alignment with this plan, the World Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) 2005-2008 included Phase II of the Land Administration Program as the government’s main instrument for strengthening property rights.

4. Rationale for World Bank involvement. To support the Peace Accords, the World Bank agreed to finance the Guatemala Land Administration Program through a three-phase, 12-year Adaptable Program Loan (APL). Phase I was approved in 1998 and targeted the Department of Petén, Phase II expanded the geographic coverage to 55 municipalities across eight new departments, and Phase III was expected to achieve countrywide coverage. The World Bank continued supporting the Program because of the importance of improving land tenure security for development issues in Guatemala and the prospect of contributing to RIC’s institutional strengthening, while developing a stronger link between RIC and the Property Registry and a multi-purpose cadaster system.

2 Updating referred to the process of recording new transactions while the stage of establishment was still ongoing. Once RIC established the cadaster in a municipality, then cadastral information was to be maintained and used for multiple purposes. 3 The Property Registry is an autonomous agency established in 1877 to legally recognize and register deeds. The main office of the Property Registry is located in Guatemala City and provides services to 14 departments. A Second Property Registry is located in the city of Quetzaltenango and provides services to eight departments in the southwest region. 4 UTJ was created in 1997 to function as the operational branch of the Inter-Institutional Commission for the Strengthening and Development of Land Property Rights (PROTIERRA).

3

1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators 5. The overarching objectives of the Land Administration Program were to: (i) increase legal security of land tenure, and (ii) strengthen the legal and institutional framework for Property Registry and cadaster services in the country. For Phase II, the Project Development Objective (PDO) was to foster the process of achieving land tenure security in the project area through the provision of efficient and accessible cadastral and land administration services.5 6. Accordingly, the original PDO indicators were:

PDO Indicator 1: 80 percent of new transactions in the Project area conducted with validated and integrated cadaster and registry information;

PDO Indicator 2: 80 percent of land conflicts identified during the cadastral survey are in a resolution process, out of which 50 percent are resolved;

PDO Indicator 3: Satisfactory rating (third level on a four-scale basis) by at least 50 percent of National System of Cadastral Information (SNIC);

PDO Indicator 4: At least 70 percent of the targeted population in the Project area participates in the cadastral survey.

1.3 Revised PDO and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification 7. The PDO was maintained, but the PDO indicators were adjusted to improve measurement of outcomes:6

PDO Indicator 1: This indicator was replaced in the First Restructuring with another that measured the percentage of parcels registered in RIC’s Public Registry. Measuring the original indicator would have been extremely difficult because it involved estimating the universe of new transactions, including those that were not recorded in the Property Registry. Instead, registration in RIC’s Public Registry was a better proxy for certainty about the parcel’s legal status. The target value was initially set at 50 percent, but was reduced to 35 percent in the Fourth Restructuring due to a substantial increase in the cost and complexity of the cadastral process as established in the RIC Law, mainly for the cadastral and legal analysis.

PDO Indicator 2: This indicator was revised in the Fourth Restructuring to clarify its interpretation and make it more focused on results. The new indicator measured that at least 50 percent of land conflicts identified during the cadastral establishment process are resolved.

PDO Indicator 3: This indicator was replaced because it would not have been feasible to measure it at the end of the Project in a statistically adequate manner. A new indicator was added in the First Restructuring to assess the satisfactory level of the technological platform for RIC’s Public Registry regarding its functionality,

5 The PDO definition in the PAD Datasheet and Main Text (p. 4) is slightly different: “…to foster the process of achieving land tenure security in seven new departments (Alta Verapaz, Baja Verapaz, Chiquimula, Escuintla, Izabal, Sacatepequez, and Zacapa) and the municipality of Palachum [sic] in the Department of Quiche through the provision of efficient and accessible cadastral and land administration services.” The version of the PDO used in the ICRR is the same as in the Loan Agreement and Annex 3 of the PAD. 6 A table detailing all the changes to the Results Framework is included in Annex 2.

4

and physical and data security. In the Fourth Restructuring, the unit of measurement for this indicator was changed from a percentage base to a straightforward assessment (yes/no) based on these key functions.

PDO Indicator 4: This indicator was replaced in the Fourth Restructuring with another that was considered more reliable and a better proxy to measure population participation. The new indicator measured that less than 10 percent of parcels incorporated in the RIC database have reports of absenteeism or nonattendance of the owner/occupant.

Core Indicators: One core indicator for land administration was confirmed in the Fourth Restructuring as an outcome indicator. The indicator is target population with use or ownership rights recorded as a result of the Project, and includes a disaggregated sub-indicator for female beneficiaries.

1.4 Main Beneficiaries 8. The Project’s direct beneficiaries included: (i) population living in rural and urban areas in the Project area, who were expected to benefit from increased tenure security as a result of the cadastral process and limited regularization activities; (ii) indigenous and peasant communities, who were expected to benefit from the certification and registration7 of communal lands, (iii) municipalities in the Project area, who were expected to benefit from an updated and accurate cadaster, and from strengthened capacity to update and maintain the cadaster, as well as to develop land use plans based on cadastral information; and (iv) local surveyors and notaries, who were expected to benefit from strengthened capacity for conducting land surveying and applying the RIC Law.

1.5 Original Components 9. Component 1 – Cadastral and land regularization (US$31.95 million or 51.3 percent of original Project cost): This component aimed at carrying out the cadaster process and limited land regularization activities in 55 municipalities. In support of the cadaster process, the Project was to finance preparatory activities for cadastral fieldwork, a social communication campaign, systematic parcel-based surveying, technical and legal analyses, and alternative conflict resolution mechanisms. In addition, the Project was to finance the delimitation of municipal boundaries, delimitation and demarcation of selected protected areas, delimitation of territorial reserves, 8 delimitation and geo-referencing of archeological and ceremonial sites, and certification and registration of communal lands. In support of land regularization, the Project was to finance the annotation of titles in the Property Registry, processing of special titling 9 cases identified during the cadastral process, and regularization and titling by the Land Fund of selected parcels adjudicated on national lands.

7 The certification and registration of communal lands is an administrative procedure that recognizes the collective property / possession / tenancy of indigenous or peasant communities over land that is collectively administered and used, as well as the agreement of the population that no surveying will be carried out of individual plots within it; it does not affect the legal status of the land, nor does it assign ownership rights. 8 In Guatemala, all rural areas within 3 km of the coastline or 300 meters of lakes and navigable rivers are considered territorial reserves of the state. The Project included areas adjacent to the Izabal Lake in the municipality of El Estor that fell under this regime. 9 The special titling provisions provided a narrow, specific authorization for RIC to proceed to regularize parcels through the Property Registry in situations where the parcel in question had never been registered in the Property Registry.

5

10. Component 2 – Maintenance of cadastral information and municipal services (US$13.32 million or 21.4 percent of original Project cost): This component aimed at developing the framework at the national and municipal level to keep cadastral information up-to-date, as well as promoting initiatives to use cadastral information for local development and territorial planning. The Project was to finance the establishment of RIC’s municipal cluster offices, the maintenance of cadastral information through private intermediaries, and training and technical assistance to municipalities for the formulation of land use plans and modernization of municipal cadaster offices. 11. Component 3 – Legal reforms and institutional strengthening for land administration (US$7.76 million or 12.5 percent of original Project cost): This component aimed at improving the legal framework and strengthening institutional capacity for land administration. The Project was to finance a review of the legal and institutional framework, support the drafting and socialization of a land regularization law, and capacity building for participating agencies. In addition, the Project was to finance the development and implementation of an integrated cadaster-registry computerized system, modernization of the Property Registry, and the development of RIC’s business plans. 12. Component 4 – Project management, monitoring, and evaluation (US$8.62 million or 13.8 percent of original Project cost): This component aimed at supporting Project management and coordination. The Project was to finance a Project Coordination Unit (PCU) within RIC, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems, independent evaluations and audits, and inter-institutional coordination activities.

1.6 Revised Components 13. The four components were maintained throughout implementation, but there were adjustments to the geographical coverage and project activities in three components:

Component 1: the Project area was reduced from 55 to 41 municipalities because the cost of the cadastral process (including surveying, and the legal and technical analysis) was 20 percent higher than estimated at appraisal. The factors contributing to higher cost included: (i) difficulties in estimating the number and size of rural parcels; (ii) increase in market prices due to the delay in starting operations; and (iii) new requirements introduced by the regulations to the RIC Law, approved in 2008.

Component 2: Technical assistance and training was added for municipalities in administering and collecting property tax.

Component 3: Preparation of a draft land regularization law was dropped since political opposition against the law in Congress could have paralyzed the Project and the law was not a prerequisite for the cadastral process. .10 The name of the component was changed to “Institutional Strengthening for Land Administration” to emphasize that the Project would no longer support legal reforms.

10 Up to the First Project Restructuring, two draft regularization laws had been prepared, but their review process had stalled due to lack of political consensus.

6

1.7 Other significant changes 14. Project Restructuring 1 (Level 2), approved on June 28, 2010, included: (i) reducing the Project area from 55 to 41 municipalities; (ii) adding additional indicators to measure intermediate results of the cadastral and regularization process not originally identified, and gender-disaggregated results; (iii) establishing an inter-institutional committee facilitated by RIC, and a technical committee within RIC to strengthen Project implementation and coordination; (iv) changing the project description in Components 2 and 3 as described in Section 1.6; (v) reallocating loan proceeds to reflect adjustments in project scope and costs; and (vi) changing the required submission period for Interim Unaudited Financial Reports (IFRs) and progress reports from quarterly to semi-annual. 15. Project Restructuring 2 (Level 2), approved on November 30, 2011, included: (a) incorporating Service Delivery Contractors as a selection method for individual consultant services; and (b) introducing the use under the Project of the latest edition of the Procurement and Consultant Guidelines (dated January 2011). 16. Project Restructuring 3 (Level 1), approved on July 25, 2012, to trigger the Involuntary Resettlement Operational Policy (OP 4.12). Although the systematic cadastral and regularization activities financed by the Project were not within the purview of OP 4.12, the delimitation and demarcation of protected areas could cause restrictions in access to natural resources to people living within or adjacent to these areas. While the risk was negligible, the policy was triggered in an effort to strengthen the Borrower’s capacity to understand and manage a potential case of involuntary restriction of access. 17. Project Restructuring 4 (Level 2), approved on August 29, 2013, as a result of the Mid-Term Review (MTR) to: (i) extend the closing date from December 1, 2013 to September 1, 2015, and (ii) make modifications and clarifications to the Results Matrix to better reflect and quantify several indicators and targets. 18. Extension of closing dates. The Project had a 21-month extension to the closing date. The MTR confirmed that the PDO was relevant and achievable, but that there would not be enough time to complete the cadastral survey due to delays in initiating and implementing the cadastral process. The Project faced a 17-month hiatus between Board approval and loan effectiveness due to delays in Congressional approval. In addition, the approval of the Specific Regulation on Communal Lands, which was a condition of disbursement for field activities under Component 1, took over a year after effectiveness due to the required consultation process. There were also many challenges in implementing cadastral activities such as a slow learning curve by firms, RIC's limited experience in managing large contracts, long-standing land conflicts, changes in local authorities following elections of 2012, and increasing security concerns. 19. Cancellation of funds. Due to implementation issues described in section 2.2, and budgetary constraints in the last year of implementation, the GoG was only able to use 79.9 percent of the full loan amount. Accordingly, on July 28, 2015, the GoG requested a cancellation of US$11.00 million dollars, which represented 17.6 percent of the total loan

7

amount. In addition, the World Bank cancelled US$1.53 million of unused funds on January 1, 2016 after the closing of the loan account.

20. Revised Cadastral Strategy. The revised target of 41 municipalities corresponded to 300,000 parcels. In 2014, RIC and the World Bank agreed to adjust the Project’s cadastral strategy due to three municipalities that refused to participate in the Project, and increasing costs that prompted RIC’s decision to only survey urban parcels in five municipalities.11 As a result, and although two additional municipalities were included as replacements, the target number of parcels was reduced to 250,000 parcels.12 The World Bank gave its ‘no objection’ to the revised strategy, but the intermediate outcome indicator was not formally revised. In the last year of implementation, RIC cancelled the cadastral surveying in two municipalities due to insufficient budget allocation reflecting the country’s fiscal constraints.

21. Property Registry. The original Project design included support for the modernization of the Second Property Registry, particularly indexing and digitization of registry books. After the contract for this activity had to be cancelled,13 and considering that it was not critical to the PDO as the Second Registry covered only one participating municipality (Pachalum), it was agreed that the Property Registry would conduct it with its own funds in the near future.

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes

2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry 22. Soundness of background analysis. Project preparation occurred in parallel to the closing of Phase I, which focused on Petén.14 As such, project design was based on the preliminary lessons from Phase I, as well as projects supported by other donors in Guatemala, and by the Bank in the region. These lessons included: (i) the importance of integrating the cadaster and registry, if not institutionally then through a technological platform; (ii) the relevance of conducting streamlined, standardized, and participatory massive cadastral surveying and land regularization; (iii) the need to implement effective conflict resolution mechanisms; (iv) the centrality of communication and beneficiary participation during implementation, through massive dissemination of information; and (v) the recognition of the critical role of municipalities in regularizing urban lands and territorial planning, for which it was considered relevant to include Cooperation Agreements between RIC and the participating municipalities.

11 The municipalities of San Miguel Chicaj (Baja Verapaz), Quezaltepeque (Chiquimula), and Sumpango Sacatepéquez (Sacatepéquez) refused to sign a cooperation agreement with RIC. The municipalities in which only urban parcels were measured are San Cristóbal Verapaz (Alta Verapaz), El Chol and Granados (Baja Verapaz), Ciudad Vieja and Santo Domingo Xenacoj (Sacatepéquez). 12 The two municipalities included are Ciudad Vieja (Sacatepéquez) and Ipala (Chiquimula). 13 The contract was cancelled due to financial problems of the firm. 14 The Implementation Completion and Results Report for Phase I was not available at the time of Project preparation and appraisal.

8

23. Assessment of Project design. No quality-at-entry assessment was carried out for Project design. It was challenging to learn from Phase I, given the characteristics of Petén, and the different legal and procedural framework that applied to it.15 The design of the cadastral process for the Project was based on its adherence to the recently approved RIC Law, but there was no time to pilot this process. UTJ’s experience in the implementation of Phase I was considered an asset for RIC. However, the land tenure situation in Petén was substantially different from the other departments in Guatemala which meant that RIC was relatively unexperienced in applying the new methodology of the cadastral process, in particular the required legal analyses. In addition, some preparatory activities were only clarified or identified when the regulations to the RIC Law were approved during the first year of Project implementation. As a result, Project design underestimated the time, costs and human resources needed to carry out the cadastral process.

24. At appraisal, RIC, a new agency still in the process of being established, was expected to benefit from UTJ’s experience. It was also decided to integrate the PCU within RIC’s structure, with project staff expected to coordinate internally with RIC’s departments, and externally with seven co-executing agencies and 55 participating municipalities. This design feature made sense from an institutional development perspective, but in practice the PCU did not have the appropriate resources or coordination mechanisms to carry out Project activities. Project design thus underestimated the challenges posed by the complexity of the activities to be carried out, and the inter-institutional coordination that it required. Fiduciary reviews also concurred that RIC was ready to assume the role of implementing agency. In general, RIC did not absorb key staff from UTJ, which meant that capacity was not fully transferred. UTJ’s fiduciary capacity was overestimated since it had relied during Phase I on the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) as fund administrator and procurement agent. The PCU’s integration into RIC’s structure led to delayed decisions and slow administrative and fiduciary processes. More than a year into Project effectiveness, a decision was made to elevate the PCU to a department level, with all PCU staff reporting to the Project Coordinator, who in turn reported directly to RIC’s Executive Director.

25. Risk Assessment. The Project’s overall risk was assessed as Substantial, and included two specific risks rated as substantial. As noted in the MTR report, the substantial risks related to project sustainability (the Land Fund lags behind in regularizing and titling rural national lands) and reputational risks for the Government and Bank (arising from conflicts related to indigenous land claims) did not materialize. On the other hand, as noted in the MTR, other unanticipated risks emerged during project implementation: (i) the risk that municipal authorities would not reach agreements over municipal limits, as a

15 Phase I contributed to the strengthening of the legal and institutional framework for land administration services, notably the approval of the RIC Law. In rural areas, Phase I surveyed 111% of targeted hectares, but only titled 9% of target. In urban areas, the Project surveyed 135% of targeted parcels and titled 192% of target. The ICRR of Phase I considered the overall Project outcome rating as moderately satisfactory. This rating was downgraded to Moderately Unsatisfactory by the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) in its ICRR review, and eventually to Unsatisfactory based on a Performance Assessment Review. This review noted that while the project was relevant, the design contained many flaws, such as the selection of Petén as a pilot when the land tenure situation is rather different from other areas in Guatemala, the low completion rates for rural titling, and the limited integration of registry and cadaster.

9

consequence of imprecise base cartography; and (ii) the risk of RIC not having the capacity to manage such a complex operation, given its recent creation and its weak fiduciary capacity at the time of Project design. This proved to be one of the critical aspects affecting Project implementation, as described in section 2.2.

2.2 Implementation 26. The Project was a ‘high risk-high reward’ operation for Guatemala, and as such faced several challenges during implementation. Throughout implementation, ratings for PDO achievement and Implementation Progress ranged from moderately unsatisfactory to moderately satisfactory. Several factors helped implementation positively: 27. Political will and commitment. The Project enjoyed a high profile for being part of the 1996 Peace Accords. The approval of the RIC Law granted credibility to the process and a mandate to coordinate with the other land agencies. With some exceptions, municipal authorities were interested and engaged in the cadastral process throughout implementation. Another positive factor at the municipal level is the fact that technical capacity was maintained after the change of administration in 2012, as trained staff was retained either in the same municipality or in one of its neighbors.

28. Attention to social issues. The establishment of the Social Support Offices (OAS) after the MTR was crucial to address social issues in the Project. Moreover, detailed social diagnostics guided Project activities in each municipality. At the end of the Project, each cluster office had an OAS run by a social technical specialist who spoke the local language. These specialists were responsible for overseeing compliance with the implementation of the Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (IPDP). Their role was to advise the population on how to navigate the cadastral process, attend to the resolution of land conflicts, accompany the process for the certification and registration of communal lands, and inform about any changes after parcels had been measured. They also provided support to the technical and legal staff of the Project. Before these technical specialists were hired, these responsibilities fell under other technical staff in the cluster offices, who usually did not have the time or language skills to carry them out properly. 29. RIC carried out cadastral surveying by direct implementation in selected areas. Although cadastral surveying was generally conducted by private firms, RIC requested to be directly responsible for these activities in the municipality of El Estor and Pachalum, and subsequently in Panzos. El Estor had long-standing and complex land conflicts, including between a mining company and indigenous communities as well as multiple overlapping claims, which required special attention to social issues. RIC coordinated Project activities through the Multi-sectorial Coordination Board, a coordination mechanism that grouped several government agencies and civil society organizations. Due to the success of this strategy, indigenous communities allowed RIC to measure their parcels. By Project closing, RIC was helping clarify the overlapping claims with the participation of indigenous communities. In addition, RIC took over cadastral surveying in Panzos when the firm selected to carry out these activities had to close its contract due to financial issues.

10

On the other hand, several factors – some outside of, and some within the control of the GoG and RIC – adversely affected implementation: 30. Challenges in meeting effectiveness and disbursement conditions. As reflected in the 17-month lag between the Bank’s approval and effectiveness, the Project, as has been historically the case in Guatemala, experienced a substantial initial delay given a 12 month delay in Congressional approval. Following effectiveness, initial implementation also suffered delays from the approval of the Specific Regulation on Communal Lands,16 which was a condition for disbursing funds under Component 1. The preparation and consultation for this regulation took more than two years, which meant that in its first year of implementation the Project lacked access to critical loan funds. Thus, the Project did not fully start implementation until 2010. 31. Political cycles and crisis that affected at times local governments’ commitment and budget allocations. Implementation was affected by the political cycle and changes of central and local authorities in 2012, as activities slowed down before elections, while requiring additional efforts afterwards to convince some of the new mayors of the Project’s relevance. Critically, in 2012, budget allocation was also substantially lower than (less than half of) the projections needed to carry out planned activities. In its final year, Project implementation was slowed down again by the lack of adequate budget allocation due to the country’s fiscal constraints, and a political crisis related to corruption investigations affecting high level authorities. Consequently, several key activities planned for the Project's final year of implementation had to be cancelled, including the cadastral surveying of two municipalities, supporting land regularization in partnership with participating municipalities, and the setting up of a new Data Center for RIC. 32. Lack of effective inter and intra-institutional coordination mechanisms to ensure collaboration from RIC’s own internal units and co-executing agencies. Project design did not account for the need for such mechanisms. To deal with these issues, the first Project restructuring included the establishment of an Inter-Institutional Committee led by the Ministry of Finance and a Technical Committee within RIC to strengthen implementation and coordination. Inter-institutional coordination was also affected by the limited resources of several co-executing agencies. 33. Challenges with the contracts for cadastral surveying. Given outdated census and geo-spatial information, the data on the number and size of land parcels available at the time the bidding documents were prepared proved to be highly inaccurate. As firms started field activities, the higher than expected number of parcels required additional time and resources. Firms also faced difficulties in accessing information of owners/occupants as absenteeism rates were high in some municipalities (particularly acute in Antigua Guatemala). This led to contracts being modified, including multiple extensions of delivery deadlines, and changes in the payment schedules. Despite RIC’s efforts to adjust to the circumstances, one firm abandoned activities in the second half of 2014 alleging lack of financial liquidity. In general, the firms had a slow learning curve and low levels of

16 Preparation of these regulations could not be started until after the approval of the RIC law.

11

productivity. The limited supply of surveyors required a training period and also learning on the field. To mitigate these challenges, the Project gave added emphasis to the training and certification of technicians and professional surveyors through the Cadastral School (ESCAT). The establishment of the cadaster is also a social process that requires the active participation of beneficiaries, and an intensive communication and outreach effort toward which surveying firms are not geared. Even though firms carried out some communication activities, it was difficult for them to meet all requirements in terms of the number of communication/outreach staff employed at any given time, outreach activities carried out well in advance of surveying, and application of methodologies and work plans. To mitigate these challenges, and as agreed during the MTR, the PCU revised the Quality Control Guide for firms.

2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization 34. M&E design. The Project’s M&E system was built largely on the system developed for Phase I (SISERIC). At appraisal, SISERIC was considered adequate to generate performance data and periodic information on intermediate results and higher-level outcomes. The M&E system was composed of four modules: household surveys, Land Fund beneficiary surveys, municipal surveys, and community characterization surveys. It also included participatory evaluation mechanisms to receive feedback from final beneficiaries, including indigenous peoples and the general public. M&E was mainstreamed into all Project components and the Results Matrix included both output and outcome indicators. 35. M&E implementation and utilization. During implementation, SISERIC proved to be a limited tool for M&E. Given initial arrangements, the Project did not have its own M&E system during the first years of implementation and monitoring depended on data provided by different departments of RIC. SISERIC was not linked to the financial administration system either, so it was not able to monitor the Project’s physical and financial progress directly. In addition, SISERIC did not generate the required reporting (e.g., it did not provide a breakdown of data by component or activity). To help address these issues, the FAO Investment Center (FAO-TCI) provided technical assistance to the PCU, which led to clear improvements in the Project’s monitoring, such as regular updating of the Results Matrix. During the MTR, the Results Matrix was revised to clarify measurements and adjust indicators to updated Project activities. In addition, a social monitoring questionnaire was included to the cadastral surveying procedure to identify the beneficiaries’ ethnicity and land conflicts. Baseline data was collected to monitor governance arrangements in communal lands. 36. Although the Project’s monitoring capacity improved, the weaknesses with evaluation remained. The baseline for the impact evaluation at the household and municipal levels was not conducted until 2011. This evaluation had treatment and control groups. A follow-up survey was planned for the final evaluation, but the procurement process was not started early enough to allow sufficient time for delivery prior to Project closing. Nonetheless, the baseline survey could help to evaluate impacts in the future once longer time had elapsed for benefits to materialize. Similarly, the Project supported an inter-

12

institutional initiative with the collaboration of CONAP to monitor forest cover for the baseline year 2010, which will enable a land cover change analysis to evaluate the impact of demarcating protected areas and registering communal lands. Finally, RIC commissioned a final Project evaluation, which provided useful information for this ICRR.

2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 37. Safeguards compliance. Overall safeguard compliance is considered satisfactory. The Project was rated B category, and triggered the Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04), Cultural Property (OPN 11.03), 17 Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.10),18 and Forests (OP/BP 4.36). Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) was triggered during implementation. Accordingly, an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) were prepared before appraisal, and a Process Framework was prepared to reflect the triggering of OP/BP 4.12 during implementation. 38. Environmental Safeguards. Compliance with environmental safeguards is considered satisfactory. The EA identified a wide range of ecosystems and biodiversity systems in the project area, some of which were already under conservation regimes, and concluded that the overall environmental impacts of the Project were expected to be positive.19 The EMP, which was mainstreamed within Components 1 and 2, included adequate mitigation measures. Supervision missions confirmed that implementation of the EMP was satisfactory. 39. Social Safeguards. Compliance with social safeguards is considered satisfactory. A participatory social impact assessment20 was carried out during Project preparation, and an IPDP was developed based on an extensive consultation process with indigenous peoples’ leaders, organizations, and communities. The IPDP allocated adequate technical, financial, and social resources for indigenous peoples’ participation in the Project, and its content was consistent with OP 4.10, as well as with the provisions in ILO Convention 169 on land and natural resources and the right to consultation and participation. The strategy for implementing the IPDP included seven elements: territorial diagnostics, communication and awareness, operationalization of the Specific Regulation on Communal Lands, gender equity, inter-institutional coordination, capacity building, and a participatory evaluation system that included social audits and a grievance redress mechanism. This approach was complemented by a social communication strategy geared toward supporting implementation of surveying activities and the certification and registration of communal lands.

17 The relevant policy at appraisal, OPN 11.03, was being revised as OP 4.11. 18 The relevant policy at appraisal, OD 4.20, was being revised as OP 4.10. 19 Positively, safer property rights were expected to reduce the need to demonstrate possession through deforestation, and encourage long-term land management and land use intensification. On the other hand, the project could induce deforestation in anticipation of the cadaster, and, if land markets became more dynamic, the project could lead to greater deforestation from increased economic activity and encourage the sale of newly titled lands to migrate to frontier areas. These potential negative impacts did not materialize. 20 The Social Assessment estimated that about 64 percent of the population in the Project area were indigenous. The main indigenous groups were Q'eqchi, Poqomchi', Achi, Chorti, Kaqchikel, Poqoman, and Garifuna. In these indigenous societies, communal lands continued to play an important role in their collective identity, livelihood strategies, and social capital.

13

40. An independent social evaluation rated compliance with the IPDP as satisfactory. The individuals in charge of the OAS, as well as other Project staff, spoke the indigenous languages and self-identified with local cultures. Through a consultative process with indigenous communities, RIC also adopted a Specific Regulation on Communal Lands, and developed a field guide for its implementation. Cadastral surveying within communal lands was done only at their request, and with a focus on facilitating natural resource management and community development. Throughout the Project, the PCU also remained engaged with NGOs interested in ensuring that the process for the identification and certification of communal lands was carried out adequately. Supervision missions provided continuous support to strengthen the capacity to comply with social safeguards such as technical legal expertise on indigenous law, social development, and M&E.

41. Fiduciary compliance. Fiduciary performance is rated moderately satisfactory. Financial Management (FM) and Procurement capacity assessments were completed before appraisal and concluded that FM risk was low, and Procurement risk was modest. Both assessments considered that RIC was in a good position to take over the fiduciary functions because of the previous experience with Phase I, but an action plan was agreed to hire additional qualified staff to strengthen capacity. However, fiduciary performance remained weak for the first years after Project effectiveness, given, inter alia, substantial delays in hiring FM and procurement staff with sufficient experience in managing Bank-financed projects. Nevertheless, throughout implementation, PCU capacity in both areas improved.

42. Financial Management. Financial management is rated moderately satisfactory. The key FM issues during implementation concerned staffing, the lack of administrative autonomy of the PCU for the first years of implementation, and insufficient budget allocations that on several occasions delayed Project implementation. Nevertheless, FM capacity was progressively strengthened throughout implementation: actions agreed upon during supervision missions were followed-up on, reporting of financial information was timely and reliable, and consecutive annual audit reports were submitted on time and had unqualified opinions. At Project closing, there were no overdue audits or financial monitoring reports (FMRs). 43. Procurement. Procurement is rated moderately satisfactory. A key issue during the initial years of implementation was the lack of sufficiently experienced staff, which contributed to implementation delays as some procurement processes had to be reinitiated due to common mistakes. Delays in the hiring of procurement staff were, at least partially, due to reasons beyond RIC’s control, as there is a limited pool of qualified staff in Guatemala. To address this issue, the Bank agreed to modify the selection requirements to facilitate the search process. Ex-post evaluations of contracts conducted during supervision missions resulted in no observations.

2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 44. In December 2014, the GoG formally requested US$50 million financing from the Bank for Phase III. The preliminary project concept proposes to consolidate the results in

14

the departments under Phase II and expand to new areas in eastern Guatemala, as well as continue supporting institutional strengthening and land governance. Considering that 2015 was a presidential election year in Guatemala and the limited budget allocation for the Project, the World Bank agreed to offer technical assistance while the incoming government confirms the request for a new project. 45. RIC prepared a transition plan for Project activities, including the cadastral process. The plan prioritized completing the process for those parcels that have already been surveyed. By January 2016, however, RIC had been unable to secure sufficient funding for the first year of the transition plan. RIC will continue to discuss the transition plan with the incoming administration to highlight the importance of: (i) maintaining regional presence though cluster municipal offices; (ii) ensuring that the cadastral information is adequately maintained, so that the investment made is not lost; (iii) completing the cadastral surveying in all of the Project’s municipalities; and (iv) and upgrading the storage capacity and hardware of the existing data center. Based on the current government priorities and lessons learnt during Phase II, it is likely that any future Bank engagement in the land sector will have a strong focus on municipal development.

3. Assessment of Outcomes

3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation 46. Project Objectives. The PDO continues to be highly relevant given the importance of land tenure security and land governance to the country’s poverty reduction and socio-economic development efforts, as well as the magnitude of the remaining challenges. The GoG has continued to support the implementation of the 1996 Peace Accords through recent policy instruments. The 2009 “National Policy for Integrated Rural Development” supports the objective of reforming and democratizing land tenure and land access. The 2014 Agrarian Policy, approved to operationalize the national policy, supports several key land administration objectives for land administration. Importantly, the “National Development Plan K’atun: Our Guatemala 2032”, formulated in 2014 by the National Council for Urban and Rural Development (CONADUR), confirmed that land tenure security and land regularization were long-term development objectives for Guatemala. 47. Project Design and Implementation. In general, the original project design was relevant to the PDO, but there were some shortcomings in strategic planning, the Results Framework, and orientation of activities, some of which were adjusted during implementation:

Strategy: The choice of APL as the lending instrument is highly relevant

considering that land administration reform requires a long-term commitment. However, the framework of the APL was not substantially revised during the preparation of Phase II. The geographic area under Phase II was justified on the grounds that UTJ had recently implemented other donors’ projects in these departments, but it is unclear how this targeting fit a broader strategy based on need and efficacy. By project appraisal, the closing date for Phase I had already been

15

extended 3.5 years which should have prompted a revision of the 12-year scope of the APL.

Cadastral Process: The emphasis on the legal nature of the cadastral process is relevant considering that the goals of the APL were to increase legal security of land tenure and strengthen the legal and institutional framework for cadastral services. However, the process for establishing the cadaster is very expensive given the cost of surveying and the cadaster and registry analysis, and it is unrealistic that under recurrent fiscal constraints RIC would be able to achieve countrywide coverage within a relatively short time frame. The implementation of Phase II showed that the intermediate products of the cadastral process, such as surveying and public displays of information, 21 already increased tenure security and facilitated the development of a multi-purpose cadaster. While project activities remain relevant to the PDO, project design would need to be re-conceived in order to achieve the government’s goal of countrywide coverage.

Results Framework: The PDO is clear and actionable as it focuses on the accessibility and efficiency of providing cadastral and land administration services to improve land tenure security. The original PDO indicators, however, were inadequate to measure outcomes. The revised indicators are specific, measurable, realistic, and relevant to the establishment of the cadastral process. Since the establishment of the legal cadaster took so long, it was unlikely to observe outcomes in terms of service provision by the time of Project evaluation. The intermediate outcome indicators were adjusted to remain relevant to the modified activities. There was a clear link between Project activities and the PDO as all funding was directed either at the establishment of the cadastral process, the strengthening of municipal capacity, or the preparation of land tenure regulations.

3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives 48. The Project fostered the process of improving land tenure security by setting the basis for the establishment of the cadastral process, strengthening the capacity of municipalities to deliver land administration services, and recognizing the land rights of indigenous peoples and women. Efficacy is discussed both in terms of achievement of PDO indicators as well as more broadly. 49. The Project improved land tenure security for a population of about one million.22 This improvement of land tenure security comes from recording the use and ownership of 274,536 parcels, benefiting 85.5 percent of the total target of beneficiaries. The cadastral process allowed the population to ascertain the exact boundaries of their parcel and resolve land conflicts. In the future, this is expected to increase the level of investments and land values (see Section 3.6). In addition, the Project recorded the rights of 96,088 women, both as individual and joint land holders, surpassing the target of 85,000. This result directly contributes to gender equity as it recognizes women’s tutelage over land assets.

21 One important step of the cadastral process was the public display of the information collected through surveying activities; beneficiaries thus had the opportunity to confirm the accuracy of the information, and to identify and correct possible errors. This step contributed to the accuracy of the information as much as to the public trust in the process. 22 The number of 965,076 beneficiaries is calculated using the 2010 population estimate by the National Institute of Statistics (INE).

16

50. The Project improved land tenure security by reducing land conflicts. During the cadastral surveying, 54 percent of identified conflicts were resolved (PDO indicator), which is 108 percent of the target value. This highly satisfactory result also shows that effectiveness of the Project’s methodology for conflict resolution in a mass cadastral survey. The Project also contributed to resolving 26 percent of the historic conflicts that the SAA had previously registered in the Project area. This value is slightly under the 30 percent target, but it also reflects the fact that conflict resolution depends on several external factorssuch as willingness of the parties for dialogue and complexity of the disputethat are beyond the SAA’s control. In addition, the Project contributed toward the resolution of the land tenure situation in El Estor, an area of historical land conflicts with a recent history of violence. 51. The high levels of participation reflect the inclusiveness and reliability of the cadastral process and show that cadastral services can be made accessible to the public. The Project recorded an absenteeism rate of 3 percent for parcels surveyed (PDO indicator). The low absenteeism rate was achieved through an intensive, multi-media social communication campaign. This highly satisfactory result (well below the 10 percent target) means that a wide range of individuals, including vulnerable groups, were able to confirm the accuracy of the cadastral information on their land. Moreover, it shows that cadastral services can be made available to the public and that the information registered in RIC’s Public Registry is reliable. 52. The Project contributed to establishing technological platforms to improve land administration services. The Project helped establish a functional and secure technological platform for RIC’s Public Registry (SIRCAT). An independent audit, based on five elements, assessed SIRCAT as satisfactory (PDO Indicator): (i) infrastructure and networks, (ii) database, (iii) development and maintenance of applications, (iv) technical support, and (v) physical security of information. SIRCAT will be the platform through which RIC will offer cadastral services to the public. In addition, the Project supported the development of a technological platform to link the databases in RIC and the Property Registry. Currently, these agencies notify each other about new transactions for those parcels that are registered in RIC’s Public Registry, and are in the process of consolidating automated processes to better integrate their databases. 53. The Project improved access to cadastral and land administration services to indigenous and peasant communities by establishing a process to certify and register communal lands. The Project provided technical assistance to facilitate the approval and operationalize the implementation of the Specific Regulation on Communal Lands. The Project carried out diagnostics to identify communal lands in 25 municipalities. Based on the diagnostics, 45 potential cases of communal lands were identified, out of which 25 requested certification; RIC surveyed the external perimeters of 18